Macro Photo thread

[drhook]

I think the Sony is okay for macro - you can fit an adaptor to the lens that will take achromats quite easily, especially the Raynoxes, though I am unsure if the Marumi could be made to fit, which, bearing in mind that I am of the opinion that the Marumi plays an integral part of my overall lens equation, could be important or not. I say this after trying the three achromats in different configurations on several cameras (the rest of the family have some decent gear, I am the pauper with the compact). I have a now defunct SX40, for example, that was useless with the Marumi - whether by itself or in conjunction with the Raynox variants. It liked the Raynoxes by themselves though and produced some decent images on a table-top tripod of spiders. Likewise my ancient D60 is great with just the Marumi, but dislikes the Raynoxes. It's impossible to use them with the sole remaining lens I have from that era which is a 28-135 EF lens (it's the 2nd generation USM one). My daughter's SL1 cannot cope at all with any achromats, and my wife's Panny G6 has such a shallow DOF with any of them it is impossible to do anything handheld. Another daughter has a Sony 5100 and it produces such awful shots with the lens it has (I think it is the kit 18-55) that I am considering getting her the 30mm macro as she would like to chase bugs too. But overall, as you can see from my photos, there seems to be little wrong with the lens of the S120 and the three achromats in conjunction with each other - in fact, for so much glass, it's amazing anything is decent at all! It is a mystery to me why it works, and handheld, with quite considerable accuracy.

Scotland, heh? Land of the free and the brave and the midge. I haven't been there for a long time, but would love to go back. Has your macro season finished then?

Edited by drhook on Monday 2nd October 23:49

[DibblyDobbler]

I did try a Marumi on the Sony and although I got some decent shots I never really settled with it. Might try again but suspect it's more likely I'll try the new Fuji 80mm on my X-T1 (once the price has gone down a bit!). Nothing much doing up here now until next May so no rush!

[drhook]

I look forward to seeing what you can get with that combo!

[GravelBen]

Space Weevil (2) by Ben, on Flickr

Space Weevil (6) by Ben, on Flickr

[GravelBen]

Earwig_3421 by Ben, on Flickr

Earwig_3411 by Ben, on Flickr

This macro thing is much easier with a flash!

[S. Gonzales Esq.]

There's some staggering stuff on this thread, but I don't think I fancy getting that close to some of the bugs featured. This is more my speed:

[nre]

Good to see the fine weather bringing the bugs back out.

Bee Fly by Nigel, on Flickr

Flying honey bee 2 by Nigel, on Flickr

not so busy bee by Nigel, on Flickr

[Ed_P]

Decent numbers of mining-bees finally starting to appear in our garden ...

Male Mining-bee by Ed Phillips, on Flickr

[DibblyDobbler]

Ed and Nigel - these are great!

I have a new macro lens coming soon so hope to get back to it properly this year

[nre]

Thanks Mike

Have another

tawny mining bee on euphorbia by Nigel, on Flickr

[ExPat2B]

Great shots nre !

I have to say your shot "flying honey bee" has me confused. Maybe exif is wrong,

ƒ/14.0
100.0 mm
1/200
iso 400
Flash (off, did not fire)

The exposure values just look...wrong.

If I try taking a picture of a flying bee at 1/200, the wings are a total blur and the bee is usually blurred from movement.

I would usually expect some flash for those settings, and ability to stop the action, and there looks to be some flash reflection on the bee, but Exif says no flash used is this an error ?

The depth of field and f/14 looks right, small size of pic and deep depth of field says to me its taken from a bit further back and cropped down.

[nre]

ExPat2B said:

Great shots nre !

I have to say your shot "flying honey bee" has me confused. Maybe exif is wrong,

ƒ/14.0
100.0 mm
1/200
iso 400
Flash (off, did not fire)

The exposure values just look...wrong.

If I try taking a picture of a flying bee at 1/200, the wings are a total blur and the bee is usually blurred from movement.

I would usually expect some flash for those settings, and ability to stop the action, and there looks to be some flash reflection on the bee, but Exif says no flash used is this an error ?

The depth of field and f/14 looks right, small size of pic and deep depth of field says to me its taken from a bit further back and cropped down.

Thanks expat

Yes the exif tells porkies. The flash is a state of the ark 1970s vivitar 285 and as it's not built in or dedicated but fired from the pc socket the camera is blissfully unaware of its existence.

I've reduced the number of pixels for posting on Flickr but it has also been cropped to remove some of the surrounding rubbish.

Cheers N

[Vintage Racer]

Armed and Dangerous!

DSC_5514_00002 (5) by Glynn Hobbs, on Flickr

[fuzzymonkey]

I'm looking to get my first macro lens.
I want one with optical stabilization so I've short listed these two in my budget as they are both the same price:
https://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lens/macro-lens/m...
https://www.canon.co.uk/lenses/ef-s-35mm-f-2-8-mac...

The Canon is a nice little lens but apparently you have to get up to 3cm away from the subject but has a built in light.
The sigma is bigger but you only have to be 30cm away to take pictures. Both get good reviews.

Am I right in thinking that the Sigma is the better lens to get as I wont have to upgrade for awhile?

[DibblyDobbler]

I would go for the Sigma 105 every time - I shoot mainly bugs so the working distance is important

[GravelBen]

I don't know that optical stabilisation is worth worrying about with a macro lens.

+1 on wanting good working distance for insects though, they spook pretty easily.

Note when lens makers quote 'minimum focus distance' that is usually from the camera focal plane not from the front of the lens. So that Sigma with 312mm minimum focus distance actually has 142mm minimum working distance between the front of the lens and the subject. Still a heap more than the Canon you linked to though.

I have a much older Sigma 105mm macro - its very sharp and as well as macro I've been very happy with the results using it for a few portraits and closer birds.

Another option if you're just wanting to have a first try at macro photography without spending much, you could do what I did and start out with a 50mm lens and $10 reverse adaptor or extension rings.

Edited by GravelBen on Sunday 29th April 12:48

[DibblyDobbler]

Went 'the full monty' on this one with f22, and autofocus - I can't detect much difference in sharpness but you definitely get a bit more depth of field


Forest Shield Bug Nymph by Mike Smith, on Flickr

[DibblyDobbler]

So you think you're having a bad day? by Mike Smith, on Flickr

[Vintage Racer]

Damsel in distress!!

DSC_8991_00003 by Glynn Hobbs, on Flickr

[DibblyDobbler]

Finally something interesting to shoot! Not been much on the go up here (Edinburgh) at all lately.

This with the 18-135 - still think it's 'quite good' for macro but not 'really good' which is what I am after... not sure about the new 80mm either - it's undoubtedly a great lens but a big heavy beast and expensive too...

Might try a 60mm macro... only 1:2 magnification but would be fine with a Raynox - also a lot smaller and lighter (and about a third of the price!) - not sure yet (as will be clear...)


Peek-a-boo! by Mike Smith, on Flickr